From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 5b1e799cdb,3ef3e78eacf6f938
X-Google-Attributes: gid5b1e799cdb,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!newsgate.cuhk.edu.hk!news.netfront.net!not-for-mail
From: wwilson <leon.winslow@notes.udayton.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.modula3,comp.programming
Subject: Re: Alternatives to C: ObjectPascal, Eiffel, Ada or Modula-3?
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:35:28 -0400
Organization: Netfront http://www.netfront.net
Message-ID: <op.uxsi9esktnumn1@home-2l5xxxt7p3>
References: <h3sln0$rhm$2@news.eternal-september.org>
 <Y_2dnY2f7NnpPvjXnZ2dnUVZ8qOdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <4fc0934e-197b-4a02-a006-4b64072897b2@h18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
 <7020ad82-ed09-4c87-8f46-db23bf2fa866@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
 <q6WdndCZP_u38vTXnZ2dnUVZ8sNi4p2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <op.uxlm3dkrtnumn1@home-2l5xxxt7p3>
 <c92bbcc3-6723-41ba-9f25-0090be852c0a@24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
 <op.uxnka1fctnumn1@home-2l5xxxt7p3>
 <alpine.LNX.2.00.0907271122100.13829@Bluewhite64.example.net>
 <op.uxrhk7xptnumn1@home-2l5xxxt7p3> <h4mqvg$9e7$2@mailhub227.itcs.purdue.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.73.98.219
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: adenine.netfront.net 1248806167 61142 68.73.98.219 (28 Jul 2009
 18:36:07 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@netfront.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:36:07 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Dave Seaman" <dseaman@no.such.host>
User-Agent: Opera Mail/9.61 (Win32)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.eiffel:440 comp.lang.ada:7381
 comp.lang.modula3:122 comp.programming:12074
Date: 2009-07-28T14:35:28-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:29:36 -0400, Dave Seaman <dseaman@no.such.host>  
wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 01:01:45 -0400, wwilson wrote:
>
>> To simplify compilation (or because the compiler writer didn't know or
>> care) many of these varieties used "DO " as a reserved word (although
>> FORTRAN had no reserved words).  I think this was more common on  
>> FORTRANs
>> for small computers though I have no proof.
>
>> Thank you for pointing out a distinction I should have made.  Any other
>> cases that I missed?
>
> You may find a few in the following program, which actually compiles  
> (with
> numerous warnings) under gfortran 4.4.0 and executes.
>
>       integer go to,do 100 if,return
>       real read(4)
>       logical go to if
>       real logical(30)
>       data read/4h(1x,,3hi5,,4hf8.1,1h)/
>       data go to,do 100 if,if 100 do/2,1,30/
>       assign 100 to if go to
>       do 100 if=do 100 if,if 100 do
>       return=if
>       logical(if)=return
>       go to if=if-go to*(if/go to).eq.do 100 if
>       if(go to if) go to if go to
>       call call(logical,return)
>   100 continue
>       print read, (if,logical(if),if=do 100 if,if 100 do)
>       stop
>       end
>       subroutine call( integer,real )
>       integer real
>       real integer(real)
>       common(if)=if*if
>       integer(real)=common(real)
>       return
>       end
>
>
>
>
>

I love it.  Beautiful.



-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/